ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00062844

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Yutong Sun	Sarahamie Ltd

Representatives

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00076110-001	07/10/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/08/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Where submissions from parties were received, they were exchanged. The complainant attended and evidence under affirmation and the respondent did not attend.

Background:

The complainant submits that he is owed monies and the respondent did not attend.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Preliminary Issue:

The complainant requested that the name of the respondent be amended to Sarahamie Ltd instead of Gemelle’s Restaurant as he never received a contract and did not receive pay slips and was not on notice of the correct name of the respondent.

Substantive Issue:

The complainant commenced employment on 13/07/2025 and his employment ended on 30/07/2025. His evidence was that he took the job as a cook following an interview but they put him working as a kitchen porter and he left because of his unhappiness with this. He received one week’s pay but when he worked the second week he did not get paid and the employer messaged him that he would not be paid. His hourly rate was €13.50, he worked 4 shifts of 8 hours duration and is owed €432. The complainant gave evidence that the respondent has closed down.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

The respondent did not attend the hearing and it would appear that the respondent is no longer in business and I am satisfied that there were efforts made to put them on notice of this hearing.

Preliminary Issue:

The complainant requested that the name of the respondent be amended to Sarahamie Ltd and taking note that there was no contract issued to him and no pay slips issued to him and that the respondent did not attend the hearing and had the opportunity to do so I am satisfied that they are not prejudiced by the change in name and amend accordingly.

Substantive Issue:

The complainant submits that €432 gross are monies properly payable to him. I note his uncontested evidence that he commenced on 13/07/2025 and he left on 30/07/2025 and he got paid for the first week but did not get paid for the second week and the respondent would not pay him as outlined in the messages that he shared.

Section (6) provides that where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

For a breach to arise then the wages must be properly payable within the cognisable period and I note that the complaint was received on 07/10/2025 and employment ended on 30/07/2025

Sullivan v Department of Education PW 2/1997 (reported at [1998] E.L.R. 217) held

“if an employee does not receive what is properly payable to him or her from the outset then this can amount to a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act”.

The complainant’s undisputed evidence was that during the cognisable period €432 was monies properly payable and I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €432 gross.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €432 gross.

Dated: 22-09-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

Key Words:

Monies properly payable, payment of wages,